Re: [DOCS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove replicaiton FAQ item.

[Mischa Sandberg]

Quoting Bruce Momjian : 
 
> Joshua D. Drake wrote: 
> > Jeff Davis wrote: 
> > > Should the text include a mention of synchronous vs. 
> asynchronous? Or 
> > > does master-master imply synchronous? 
> >  
> > It shouldn't. It is possible to have synchronous replication 
> without it 
> > being master<->master. 
>  
> We could mention async vs sync but at the FAQ stage I think the 
> multi-master/master-slave disinction is enough. Let's see what 
> questions 
> we get. 
 
About all you can say is, it is not possible to implement synchronous 
master-master replication, because of conflict resolution of 
simultaneous transactions. 
-- 
"Dreams come true, not free." -- S.Sondheim, ITW  


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [DOCS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove replicaiton FAQ item.

[Mischa Sandberg]

Quoting Bruce Momjian : 
 
> Mischa Sandberg wrote: 
> > About all you can say is, it is not possible to implement 
> synchronous  
> > master-master replication, because of conflict resolution of  
> > simultaneous transactions.  
>  
> You mean asynchronous master-master?  There are some implementations 
> (Sybase?, pgreplicator) that do this and have conflict resolution. 
 
Forgive my kibitz, then; perhaps my head has been stuck in sand a 
while. You're right, I forgot about the nicer bits of Sybase 
RepServer. Synchronous replication was scratched early in the project, 
because two-phase commit took too long across a dozen db servers. 
 
Pgreplicator advertises itself as a "store-and-forward asynch replica 
(sic) engine." (quoth http://pgreplicator.sourceforge.net/ ) 
--  
"Dreams come true, not free." -- S.Sondheim, ITW  


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
  joining column's datatypes do not match